Mostly that line about the monster reminds us that there’s a way in which we understand literature as an attempt at creating an aesthetic object—that’s implicitly an aesthetically pleasing object. Frankenstein, according to Shelley, was conceived to terrify the reader much like she’d been terrified by the stories of galvinism and reanimation from that night in Switzerland. In other words, she was still working within the framework of the sublime, but from the other direction—the affective response she wanted was something rather different.

What you end up with, then, is the idea of the monster as a commentary on the sublimity, from two directions, available to literature. Or something like that. Who here can rehearse burke/kant/etc on the sublime off the top of their head to better situate my point?